clintropolis opened a new issue #6934: Consistent naming of 'no-op', 'empty' aggregators URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/issues/6934 Follow up of [discussion here](https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/6397#discussion_r251379442) requesting that naming of aggregators is consistent. I am currently unsure if it is worth using naming convention to distinguish "empty" aggregators, which create an empty value to offer up for combining/merging but otherwise do nothing during aggregation, and "no-op" aggregators which do nothing and return constants for combining/merging. **Aggregators I would consider "empty":** datasketches: `ArrayOfDoublesSketchNoOpAggregator`, `ArrayOfDoublesSketchNoOpBufferAggregator` druid-bloom-filter: `EmptyBloomFilterAggregator`, `EmptyBloomFilterBufferAggregator` **Aggregators I would consider "no-op"** processing: `NoopAggregator`, `NoopBufferAggregator` datasketches: `DoublesSketchNoOpAggregator`, `DoublesSketchNoOpBufferAggregator` distinct-count: `EmptyDistinctCountAggregator`, `EmptyDistinctCountBufferAggregator` If there is not enough distinction in behavior between what I've classed as "empty" and "no-op" then these should all share naming convention, but at minimum, they should at least be self consistent within behavior, with all "empty" classes starting with "Empty" and all "no-op" classes starting with "Noop" or something to that effect. This needs #6397 merged first
---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] With regards, Apache Git Services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
